A carefully manufactured one, too. The Wall Street Journal has an accurate read on President Barack Obama’s (D) constructed ire.
“For a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this Administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam,'” Mr Obama said Tuesday, using his preferred acronym for Islamic State. “That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”
Since the President asked, allow us to answer. … If the US is under attack, Americans deserve to hear their President say exactly who is attacking us and why. You cannot effectively wage war, much less gauge an enemy’s strengths, without a clear idea of who you are fighting.
Mr Obama’s refusal to speak of “radical Islam” also betrays his failure to understand the sources of Islamic State’s legitimacy and thus its allure to young Muslim men. The threat is religious and ideological.
Obama also said this:
Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam. It’s a political talking point.
And yet, here he is, making it a political talking point. As well as repeating his lack of understanding of what our enemy is and so preventing himself from constructing a means of destroying it while also preventing Defense from constructing such a means and then acting on it. As well as repeating his lack of understanding of why it’s important to accurately name our enemy. The idea of accurately identifying our enemy is not to “make it go away.” It’s to help in accurately understanding our enemy so we can destroy it.
The term “radical Islam” plainly is extremely important to Obama, too, despite his emotional denial of the importance of it; his seven and a half year refusal to use the term to identify the terrorists demonstrates that. His steadfast refusal to identify these terrorists, to say who they are, also says far more about his failure to do his duty regarding our nation’s safety, and it says far more about his level of immorality in that failure than it says about any of his critics who decry his failure.
Talk about playing politics with terrorism. Jeez.
Elections have consequences.
Two more points:
1. He is equally hypocritical when he refers to his “friends” on the other side of the aisle. He’s never bothered with any effort to meet anyone halfway, least of all those who disagree with him from principle.
2. Refusing to acknowledge the source of our enemies’ drive (whether they are correct in their interpretation of Islam or not; their interpretation drives everything they do) hobbles every aspect of our effort to defeat them – and thus to survive. DHS folded, without even a whimper, to CAIR, et al, who objected to any mention of Islamic teachings – even misused ones – in explaining terrorist motivations. So no one in law enforcement or antiterrorism had any inkling an Islamist might target LGBT related activities.